Curse

Blue Steel · Aug 31, 2005, 09:15 PM // 21:15

I think the number of classes really shouldn't be increased. There is plenty of variety now and all the major categories are well covered. New class suggestions (like rogue) tend to bleed into existing categories way too much (mesmer, ranger). Give us more skills but not more professions, unless those new professions are RADICALLY different (maybe a shapeshifter? that would be different enough from the current six).

I'm inclined to think that the profession count should not be increased, though. Like Magic: The Gathering, five is plenty when you can combine two and you have get all the variety you need. Adding more just makes the others less unique.

Neo-LD · Aug 31, 2005, 09:43 PM // 21:43

I agree. ANET has all the major areas of ~magic covered:

life
death
mind
body
nature(natural)
nature(destructive).

I also enjoy how the classes roughly equate to the colors of magic the gathering (Im an avid player/collector of mtg)

monk = white
mesmer = blue
necro = black
elementalist = red
ranger = green
warrior = artifact

Right now each class is very unique and does not infringe on an area that is supposed to be controlled by another class. There simply is no more room for another class. There are no more categoies that are as good, and any new class would be far too shallow in comparison to the current ones.

IMO, the only additions to classes should be new skills for the current ones.

Judas Paladin · Aug 31, 2005, 10:40 PM // 22:40

yeah, maybe but for the sheer sake of game popularity and ratings i'm sure we will see some new classes someday in the future. And i read another post where someone said there is really only one melee character type. Sure, not true if you slap a sword on a ranger and play evasion tank or a smiting monk, but there should at least be more than one common melee type (the warrior), if you get my drift. For now, I can see why no new classes would be neccessary but I agree more skills would be the way to go...for now.

I myself am sure there will be some new classes in the future though.

Or....

As far as classes go on infringing on other classes and all that, you could design a class purely for the purpose of morale, gold, exp, drops, and party bonuses. Like a class that would somehow have skills that increase gold drops, increase exp gains, and increase item drops, boost morale, and give other party bonuses--of course with some sort of limit to their power as seeing they would be a pure party type. They shouldn't be able to solo either. Or if that sounds too crazy a merchant class would work as well where they could set up shops, like MMORPG Ragnarok Online. Although an aspect of many games that they haven't really covered in this would probably be either what i just mention above or some sort of summoner class(which has been previously discussed/flamed/agreed on). Something other than necro summons that is.

Ultimate_Gaara · Aug 31, 2005, 11:22 PM // 23:22

they should focus of giving each class their own special rune like the warriors absorption rune

some more detail on each class would be a good thing to see, i would take a game with small amout of characters with large detail over a some what broken up game with 20 diffrent builds any day...

Plague · Aug 31, 2005, 11:37 PM // 23:37

All the archetypes were covered with the Warrior and Monk. The fighter and the caster, damaging or healing or otherwise.

I know I'd hate to leave creative development up to some of you people.

Remember it being said that the ultimate goal by the end of the final chapter was to have thousands of skills to choose from? Why don't you complain about that? All of the skills we have now do the same thing in different ways. Degen/Curse/Heal/Damage/Enchant. We only needed five skills! Outrageous, isn't it? Make a thread about that.

Neo-LD · Sep 01, 2005, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plague

All the archetypes were covered with the Warrior and Monk. The fighter and the caster, damaging or healing or otherwise.

I know I'd hate to leave creative development up to some of you people.

Remember it being said that the ultimate goal by the end of the final chapter was to have thousands of skills to choose from? Why don't you complain about that? All of the skills we have now do the same thing in different ways. Degen/Curse/Heal/Damage/Enchant. We only needed five skills! Outrageous, isn't it? Make a thread about that.

Someone is missing the point. If there were a just a warrior and monk, could you think of other characters who would do differet things? Not game-wise, but theme-wise. Well, yes youd say, there should be an archer, a mage, a mentalist, etc. Does Poison arrow do the same basic thing as conjure phantasm in a different way? Yes, and thats fine. The issue is that no, with these 6 classes, every major theme of magic is covered. Like I said before, life, death, mind, body, nature and elements. With these classes, can you think of a character to make that no one would say "eh, thats kinda already done by that class we already have".

......

......

Exactly.

Seron Dalar · Sep 01, 2005, 03:22 PM // 15:22

^Who made those the major themes of magic? Seems like you just looked at the classes and arbitrarily created those.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ighlight=Rogue

Topic I made a few weeks ago which was closed for no reason whatsoever, but contains a solid Rogue class. Read the whole topic, since it contains arguments about stealth. However, there are only a few stealth skills there anyway (mostly in Subterfuge, and I'm sure you could find something else to put as the third attribute). There's minimal overlap into other classes, plus several unique things. The Rogue is potentially a very deep class, and if they could make something crazy like a Mesmer work, a Rogue wouldn't be a stretch.

As for archetypes, the most typical "party" in a fantasy game consists of a fighter, a wizard, a thief, and a cleric. We got Warriors, Elementalists, and Monks. (Rogues would fill out the thief bit.) Rangers can slip in because they're archers, and Aragorn was one, so everyone's like "Oh I wanna be like Aragorn." Necro's, well, they're usually a sub-branch of the wizard specializing in death magic. So they're kind of an archetype, just not exactly an archetypal class. (Frankly, I'm impressed that they could come up with a full Necromancer class.) Mesmers they pulled outta nowhere. A class based on subverting the energy and spellcasting of others? Wow. I guess they're supposedly illusionists, which would usually be similar to necromancers in that it's a specialist sub-branch of the wizard, but the actual functioning purpose of them is really original.

In short-- yes to Rogues. No to most other things, for reasons that have probably been discussed.

Elena · Sep 01, 2005, 04:50 PM // 16:50

the only problem i see is assigning a god for those new classes :P

Ristaron · Sep 01, 2005, 05:06 PM // 17:06

I keep toying with suggesting an idea of "prestige classes". Where the two you take as a combination can be made into a prestige class starting at level 20, giving you access to new spells that are available only to that new class.

Warrior/Monk would be Paladin, of course... they'd have some expanded capabilities such as a base damage reduction against undead and some stronger self-healing spells.
Ranger/Warrior would be a Keeper... with some Earth-flavoured spells for damage and defense
Ranger/Ele could be a Druid... the next step of Geomancer
Mesmer/Ranger would be a Vagabond... better illusions and DOT spells (though, I don't think you can get much better than Conjure Phantasm and not be broken)
Monk/Warrior would be a Judge... with smites powered by divine favour and smiting prayers.

As you can see, the idea is very, very rough. But it would be a good way to keep levelling after 20. You can switch what you are in the Desert, of course, by switching your second profession (which wouldn't be shown to the party -- you'd be "Druid3" (as in R/E 23)).
Just my imagination running, it can be a good idea with alot of work...

Epinephrine · Sep 01, 2005, 05:41 PM // 17:41

So /signed!

No new classes!

Ristaron · Sep 01, 2005, 05:41 PM // 17:41

Not until the next chapter, at least.

asd334 · Sep 01, 2005, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Fine if you dont want new classes but at least open the spell spectrium up so you can do more things like summoning, wards, new spells, etc so ya at the minium you have to agree that is needed

Flame · Sep 01, 2005, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by asd334

Fine if you dont want new classes but at least open the spell spectrium up so you can do more things like summoning, wards, new spells, etc so ya at the minium you have to agree that is needed

...We have summoning. We have wards. And the OP suggests new spells. I don't understand your position.

Knight of Eternal Darknes · Sep 01, 2005, 09:23 PM // 21:23

well for a lot people its the look of there character maybe they should make body type or something more variety into what your character looks like

Racthoh · Sep 01, 2005, 10:40 PM // 22:40

True, the basic idea is covered in the current 6 classes, but wouldn't be it a nice change of pace to have a new melee class we could whine about aggroing everything?